Threat to wool’s future in fabrics

Press, 4 July 1983, Page 15

Threat to wool’s future in fabrics

Dramatic cuts in New Zealand funds for wool promotion were reported earlier this year. This week we begin a series of three articles, written exclusively for “The Press,” on the British textile industry. From London, ANGUS STEWART reports on the progress and decline of the industry which is one of the wool growers’ major buyers. Today — the reasons for the industry’s decline, and a warning to guard the growers’ interests. On Wednesday — details of the tactical moves which could revitalise an honoured but ailing industry. Finally, next Monday — the signs of hope, the wool textile manufacturers who lead' the world.

So New Zealand farmers won’t pay as much to promote wool. In Britain that causes little reaction. Not because the British don’t enjoy spending promotional money, but because there are so many problems that even a significant reduction in one category of support escapes almost unnoticed. While there is talk of a more buoyant economy, few regard it as more than talk. Announcing their figures, Tootal, the British based multi-national textile group says it has seen no sign of a recovery. The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development’s main economic indicators suggest that we should be wary of political comments which might be motivated by expediency rather than reality. Since 1979 unemployment in the United Kingdom has increased by nearly 8 per cent, while in the O.E.C.D. as a whole, the growth has been at half that rate. The real GNP is 2¥r per cent down on the 1979 figure, compared with an increase of nearly 2 per cent for the O.E.C.D. over all. Who, one asks, is fooling who? Wool producers looking at

nuui pruuuuers luuxing at their markets might decide that growth is more likely in Italy, West Germany, and the United States, than in Britain. They might be more certain of sales increasing in Japan and the Soviet Union. Although the United Kingdom is still an enormous market for New Zealand, the British ability to buy, process, and resell is itself diminishing. However, the reduction of growers’ money from the International Wool Secretariat does not reduce the need for promotion. On the contrary, it emphasises the need for New Zealand to guard its marketing policy with increased vigilance.

New Zealand must be asking what it will lose by the Wool Board’s knocking its contribution to the I.W.S. from S4SM to S32M. It might also be asking what it will get for that remaining S32M. How does the I.W.S. spend its funds? What is the marketing situation it nurses? Does the New Zealand wool grower have adequate information on which to evaluate the work of his employees? Britain is a major market. New Zealand is the major source of wool imported by Britain. An important end use is apparel fabrics. What are the facts concerning the apparel fabric industry in the United Kingdom? Britain’s National Economic Development Office asked independent consultants to examine this market. Their report is a masterful analysis of the results of inadequate marketing and the rejection of opportunity. The report is worth studying in New Zealand, so that wool usage doesn’t suffer from similar mismanagement. Suppliers of the raw wool are as vulnerable as wool’s intermediate processors. The apparel fabric cus-

iue dppcuei ictuiiu tubtomer is the garment manufacturer. His role has changed in recent years because: ® It has been cheaper to import basic garments from low labour cost countries than manufacture in the United Kingdom. • Styles of dress have changed: i.e. more jackets and fewer suits; more separates and fewer dresses. • Mass market demands for fashion and design have increased, and the seasonal importance of colour themes become more marked. • Fashion and new styles have become major competitive weapons, particu-

larly in the mass market.. As a result garment manufacturers have to: • Up date their ranges more frequently. • Avoid long term commitment to certain types of fabric. • Demand greater variety and innovation. • Buy from wherever they can find new merchandise, home or abroad. In reacting to public demand the garment manufacturer has radically changed his own needs. The N.E.D.O. research has substantiated what has been known for many years, that the textile industry has not

UXV ICALHC IUUUOLiy IICXO HUV J responded with enough F““ speed, nor with enough con- | viction, to the present day I requirements of its con- I sumers. I “U.K. buyers require I fabric manufacturers to I place more emphasis on I producing new fabrics, and I on being more involved in I fashion trends. I “The market requires a I greater variety of fabrics, I in small volumes, and in I shorter lead times than pre- I viously. | “U.K. fabric manufac- I turers, particularly those in I the weaving industries, have I either not understood these I changes well enough or I have not adapted their own I organisations and policies I

adequately, since there are large volumes of imports from developed countries in all fabric sectors. “Particular criticisms expressed by the buyers interviewed were: (1) Not enough innovation in fabric construction and surface effect. (2) Insufficient involvement with fashion trends. (3) Failure to design targeted ranges. (4) Not presenting their ranges effectively.” The report, then, is a damning verdict on the home textile industry. It does not make comforting reading for major suppliers

of wool, particularly as the 1983 figures so far show a continuing decline in the amount of wool textiles exported from Britain. The report recommends the I.W.S. as a source of information on fashion, colour, and range presentation. The work it does in these and other areas is superb. However, it is probably not unkind to say that, as far as its operation in Britain has affected the local textile industry, the results have been lacklustre. Although the I.W.S. has been preaching the correct message and delivering the best advice, possible, the

industry has not been able' to maintain itself. New Zealand must question the effectiveness of the I.W.S. Now the thoughtful observer in Britain would like to ask the New Zealand Wool Board how is it going to protect its market here? Ct is the Wool Board happy to see it at risk, and possibly diminish, having the confidence that its wool will be purchased by other markets? The British apparel fabric industry is in a predicament. It produces many excuses and explanations. Many of these, though justified, side-step the major issue — that the product was not appropriate to its market. New Zealand wool could find itself inappropriate. Cotton and silk have climbed into prominence marginally over wool they are the luxury natural fibres. The wool promotion has 'become institutionalised. Silk and cotton have some extra glamour. Currently, man-made fibres are embarrassed by too much production capacity. Fashion has helped their discomfiture by emphasising the virtues of natural fibres.

However, only an ostrich would be unaware that the next generation of synthetic fibres will pose their own threat to nature. Research into man-made fibres is bearing results. Within the next few years there will be major developments in that area — in all likelihood the invasion on tothe international market will come from Italy, the •United States and Japan. All three countries have massive marketing expertise. And they have kept a stranglehold on their domestic markets by ensuring that they always serve their own people first. The New Zealand Wool Board has to be very wary. It has to know exactly what is happening in Britain. It must not believe its own promotional campaign. That is what the British industry did, with such unfortunate results. The promotion of New Zealand wool in Britain is a necessary and serious business. If the Wool Board is questioning how much of the promotion should be done through the 1.W.5., then on this side of the world that seems a very reasonable first step.